Short abstract:

In this research, we defend the idea that the term ‘protein corona’ presents a kind of trilemma as a field being able to produce many scientific articles but whose epistemic gain is still challenging to evaluate and identify.

Long abstract:

From 2007 onwards, the expression “protein corona” has been used in hundreds of scientific articles. Its proponents claim that it is central to the field of bionanoscience. This expression has had great “quantitative” success: several hundreds of protein corona scientific articles are being published each year in peer reviewed journals. Yet, on a qualitative level, after more than 15 years of research in this field, estimating the specific achievements of the field other than the cataloguing of which proteins might be adsorbed on the surface of which type of particle seems uneasy. Is the protein corona a legitimate subject of research? Or is it a science hype bubble which could end up self-correcting into inexistence?

In this research, we defend the idea that the term ‘protein corona’ presents a kind of trilemma as a field able to produce many scientific articles but whose epistemic gain is still challenging to evaluate and identify. Yes, the protein corona has become a powerful label for publishing and attracting resources. Yet, its 'conceptual' function seems to lose relevance, since its de facto scientific production appears to be oriented towards the accumulation of technical practices. Eventually, it may be that the core value of the 'protein corona' is to provide nanoscience groups working on the boundary between disciplines (chemistry, physics, and biology) a common language to engage with.